I, Diana Holland Faust, get almost as many inquiries about
Hollands in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee who belong to a
different Holland family from my own, as I do about my own Jimmie Holland
family line. Of course, those making the inquiries do not know which
line they descend from -- that's why they inquire. For that reason,
and to help those who seek, I am publishing here all the information I have
on the other major Holland family in the same region. It is meticulously
researched by Wiley Julian Holland and provided to this website for the
purpose of disseminating actual, factual, researched genealogy, as opposed
to making assumptions and guesses and propagating it online as truth.

There are over 50 RootsWeb and Ancestry postings showing
Michael Holland as the son of John Holland, the progenitor
of the Nansemond County Holland families. The posts show
Michael's birth as 1666 in Nansemond County.

These postings are incorrect and are indicative of the
manner in which two individuals took liberties with the
truth even though they were aware all the Nansemond County
public records were destroyed by fire on three occasions.
There are no records in Nansemond County listing dates of
birth.

In 1955 John Bennett Boddie wrote a chapter titled "
Hollands of Nansemond" in his series on Historical Southern
Families. Because the records were destroyed in Nansemond
County, Boddie studied land transactions in Isle of Wight,
an adjoining county. He concluded that "based on
circumstantial evidence, it appears John Holland of
Nansemond had four sons: HENRY, JAMES, JOSEPH, and JOHN
HOLLAND Jr"

Kirk Davis Holland had access to Boddies's information
dealing with the Hollands of Nansemond County. He authored a
book titled "A History of the Virginia Holland Families
1622-1963", published in 1963. Kirk Holland did not say, "
based on circumstantial evidence, it appears John Holland
had four sons, Henry, James, Joseph and John Holland Jr".

He stated categorically they were John's sons. He then added
Michael Holland to that list as the youngest son for what
reason I have no knowledge. Kirk Holland gave no source
information for that statement as was the case in most of
the information attributed to him.

Jeanette Holland Austin in her internet publication, The
Georgia Pioneers, also wrote Michael was the son of the
Immigrant John Holland. As in most cases, Ms. Austin copied
Kirk Holland's information but went further than Kirk on the
Immigrant John's alleged children. She actually assigned
years of birth for them: James, 1659, Henry, 1660, Joseph,
1661, John Jr., 1664 and Michael, 1666. The fires destroyed
all birth records in Nansemond but that fact apparently
meant little to Ms. Austin.

The immigrant John Holland was an indentured servant and the
first record of him in Nansemond County was February 20,
1664. That was the date Colonel Edward Blake and Edward Isom
were granted 2500 acres of land in Nansemond for
transporting the 50 people which included included John
Holland.

Thus the dates of birth for James, Henry, Joseph are
incorrect because their alleged father was still in England.
The 1664 date of birth for John Jr. and the 1666 date for
Michael are also incorrect. During those periods the
Immigrant John was serving his indenture period in Nansemond
County and was not allowed to marry or have children. I
agree with Boddie that the Immigrant John probably had four
sons, excluding Michael, and their ages were estimated in my
paper titled, "John Holland of Nansemond, a Burnt County".

Because of the absence of records Boddie only devoted 13
pages of his series on the "Hollands of Nansemond" John
Holland's alleged four sons, Henry, James, Joseph and John
Jr. were mentioned on numerous occasions in those thirteen
pages. There is not a single instance of anyone with the
name Michael Holland mentioned.

The first public record I located showing the name, M.
Holland, was in the St. Paul's Parish Records, Hanover
County, Virginia dated February 1, 1719. His land was
included with other properties for the purpose of surveying
and formalizing boundary lines. Eight years earlier, on
October 19, 1711, the St. Paul Parish Records lists a Mr.
Holland whose lands are listed for processing.

Again on March 1, 1715, he was listed as Holland on land
partitions. I assume all three listings are Michael Holland
because his lands were part of processing into precincts
from then through November 12, 1771, 25 years after his
death. There is not a single known verifiable record of his
existence before October 19, 1711 that I could locate in my
research.

Several people have posted that Michael married Judith
Merryman. I have never seen any documentation that Judith's
last name was Merryman.

Michael wrote his will in 1746 in Goochland County, Virginia
and it is on file at the Courthouse and is included in Book
Five. some. If he was born in 1666, as some say, he would
have been eighty when he drafted his will. ,

In Michael's will he lists three daughters, Anne, Susanna
and Marcy who are underage and he appoints guardians for
them. Marcy married in 1759 and Susannah, in 1757. Using an
average of twenty years for them at the time of their
marriage, it would place their births around 1737. If
Michael was born in 1666, that means he sired children at
the age of about 71. My personal opinion is that Michael was
born about 1681-1685 in England.

On several of his land patents, he was referred to as
Captain Michael Holland. On others it was Michael Holland, "Gentleman".This
term in the 18th centuries can best be described by the
following excerpts from, "Was there an American Common Man",
by Kevin Kelly, a Colonial Williamsburg publication.

"It will be useful to review what characterized a Gentleman
in the 18th century because it sharply reveals what was
thought to set the better sort apart from the rest of
society, and it will remind us that these traits were
presumably possessed only by an extremely small minority of
the Virginia population.

A gentleman was expected to be educated, not just beyond
basic literacy but to receive a "liberal" education grounded
in Greek and Latin classics. And the knowledge gained was to
be used in both private and public conversations. From
tutors to classes at the College of William and Mary to
studies in England, the sons of the Virginia gentry were
exposed to the best in eighteenth century schooling."

The article continues, "A gentleman was of good family
background. Certainly one's immediate forefathers should be
one of a gentle status. Ideally one was born into the elite.
A gentleman was to be wealthy enough to bear the cost of
living the genteel life without visible strain. He was
expected to command. It was his right and his duty. But most
important was to be free from the necessity to work,
especially if that work involved physical or manual labor."

There is no doubt Michael was a man of considerable means
for that period in Virginia as noted in both his and his
wife's will. I suspect he might have been born into a
wealthy family in England. Virginia historians have stated
there were many upper class Englishman who moved to Virginia
in the late 17th and early 18th century. At this time, the
threat of Indian massacres had subsided and a basic
infrastructure and changes in the manner in which land could
be granted made Virginia attractive for large investments in
property.

Throughout most of the seventeenth century land was granted
almost exclusively on the headright system whereas 50 acres
of land was granted to an individual for each person whose
transportation to Virginia from England was paid by the
grantee

With the Virginia population increasing and labor more
plentiful, there arose a demand to permit the granting of
undeveloped land, particularly land adjacent to developed
tracts without having to pay for the transportation of
additional headrights. Accordingly by the late seventeenth
century, customs and laws were modified to permit land
grants based upon the payment of a fee in the Secretary's
office , usually at a rate of five shillings for each fifty
acres granted. This appears to be the manner in which
Michael Holland accumulated his thousands of acres of
property.

The 1704 Virginia quit rent tax schedule required each
landowner to pay one shilling in taxes for every 50 acres
owned. The tax was paid in tobacco at a penny per pound. The
1704 Virginia tax list lists four Hollands: Henry Holland,
Nansemond County, 400 acres, John Holland, Nansemond County,
700 acres, Joseph Holland, Nansemond County, 100 acres and
William Holland, 300 acres in Gloucester County. No Michael
Holland is listed on the 1704 tax roll.

If Michael was living in Virginia prior to the imposition of
the 1704 Quit Rent, in my opinion, he would have been listed
as a landowner. I am of the opinion that Michael migrated to
Virginia between 1704 and October 10, 1711 when he is first
listed as owning property in the part of New Kent County
which became Hanover County in 1720

Michael was granted three patents of land in Henrico County,
July 20, 1724 totaling 1200 acres. On June 11, June 16, and
October 13, 1727 he received six patents totaling 2346 acres
in Henrico County. September 28, 1730, he received four
patents totaling 4961 acres in Henrico County. On May 5 and
August 25, 1731 he was granted 3 more land patents totaling
7150 acres in Goochland and Hanover Counties. April 11, and
April 15, 1732, he was granted 3 land patents in Goochland
and Hanover Counties totaling 3840 acres.

On June 20, 1733, he received one land patent in Goochland
totaling 3450 acres. On September 10, 1735 he received one
patent of 4365 acres in Goochland. April 22, 1736 he
received one 400 acre patent in Hanover County. On July 20
and September 12, 1738 he received three patents in Amelia
and Hanover Counties totaling 4360 acres. August 20 and
December 1, 1740 he received three land patents in Hanover
County for 1200 acres.

On March 30, 1743, he was granted two land patents in
Hanover and Amelia Counties totaling 700 acres. His last
known land patent was granted March 15, 1744 in Goochland
County totaling 4753 acres. I believe that is a total of
38,725 acres. A separate patent of 400 acres on September
28, 1730 was made jointly by Michael and William Ford, the
father of Michael's future daughter in law, Sarah. I am sure
Michael owned more property but the land patents listed
above are the only ones I could verify.

Not only was Michael referred to as "Gentleman" and Captain
he was also designated as the attorney for the estate of
Thomas Darsie in Hanover County September 11, 1735. In 1731
he was appointed to survey the location of a road in Hanover
County, so we know he was also a surveyor. He must have been
a Member of St. Paul's Parish Church in Hanover County
because on February 19, 1734 his Church tithes were used to
maintain a local road. In 1734 he was appointed the
administrator of the estate of Robert Houett, deceased.
Michael was appointed Sheriff in Hanover County 1740 to
assure Quit Rent taxes were paid, in tobacco prior to June
1st and cash money after that date.

Michael died in 1746. There seems to be some controversy
about his date of death as compared to the date of his will.
The posts show the will as being written 10 October, 1746.
It shows the will being proved upon the death of Michael,
March 17, 1746. I believe those dates were reversed in
somebody's transcriptions because Michael was still alive on
August 27, 1746. On that day, he was a witness to his son,
George's marriage to Sarah Ford. Michael had arranged dowry
provisions before their marriage in his will. His wife,
Judith's will was dated 1751 and it is also on file in
Goochland.